New Delhi, Dec 15 (PTI) The government moved the Supreme Court swiftly Saturday seeking correction in the Rafale jet judgement about reference to CAG and PAC as it felt any delay would escalate confusion and give fresh ammunition to the opposition, sources said here.

The Centre told the top court that reference in its order on the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), was “misinterpretation” of its note and has “resulted in a controversy in the public domain”.

A marathon meeting involving top brass of defence and law ministries and Attorney General K K Venugopal was held Saturday where it was decided to move application in the SC today itself, the sources said.

They said, any delay in moving the apex court would escalate confusion and give fresh ammunition to the opposition to attack the government in the ongoing winter session of Parliament.

PAC chairman Mallikarjun Kharge has denied seeing the CAG report on Rafale jets.

The opposition has also accused the government of misleading the SC.

The judgment Friday had mentioned that pricing details of the deal being shared with CAG which in turn shared its report with Parliament’s PAC. In its application, the Centre said the two sentences in paragraph 25 of the judgement appeared to have been based on the note submitted by it along with the pricing details in a sealed cover, but indicated the words used by the court lent a different meaning.

The Centre made it clear that it did not say that the CAG report was examined by PAC or a redacted portion was placed before Parliament.

It clarified that the note had said the Government “has already shared” the price details with the CAG, which was written in past tense and “is factually correct”.

However, where it was stated by the Centre in the note that the report of the CAG “is” examined by the PAC, was a description of the procedure which is followed in the normal course, but in the judgement ‘is’ was replaced with the words ‘has been’, according to the application.

Similarly, the statement that only a redacted version of the report “is” placed before Parliament, was referred to in the judgment as “only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and was in public domain”, the Centre said and sought necessary changes in the apex court order.

This is published unedited from the PTI feed.